Joseph Stalin, for a quarter-century undisputed master of the Soviet Union and its postwar satellites, was one of the leading mass murderers of the murderous twentieth century. So much so that Hitler, Stalin's competitor in this field, came greatly to admire him. In some of his "table talks," held in the circle of intimate associates while German troops were ravaging the Soviet Union, Hitler called him a "genius" and a "tiger."*

According to Alexander Yakovlev, a member of the Politburo and the closest adviser of Mikhail Gorbachev, who as chairman of a commission to study Stalinist repressions had access to all the relevant records, Stalin was responsible for the death of 15 million Soviet citizens. He tyrannized over the country as no one had done before. Yet according to public opinion polls, he remains one of Russia's most popular political figures: a survey conducted in 2006 revealed that nearly one half (47 percent) of Russians regarded him as a positive figure.

What accounts for this paradox? It is that the great majority of Russians have little interest in politics. They regard politicians as crooks and esteem them only to the extent that they protect them from their neighbors and foreigners. Their concerns are not national but local, which means that the majority of them do not participate in politics in the sense in which the ancient Greeks have taught us. Thus when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 after nearly three quarters of a century of unprecedented tyranny, there were neither protests nor jubilations; people simply went about their private business. The lives of the great majority of Russians are uncommonly personal, which makes them excellent friends and poor citizens.

There was nothing in Stalin's background to have anticipated that he would wield such monstrous power. He came into the world in the Georgian province of the Russian Empire, the child of a cobbler and a washerwoman, both of whom had been born serfs. His actual year of birth was 1878 but in 1922 he decided to rejuvenate himself and proclaimed his birthdate to have been December 21, 1879. Henceforth, as long as he was alive, his birthday was celebrated on that day throughout the Soviet Union. His alleged fiftieth birthday in 1929 was a national holiday.

Harvard University's library catalog lists over 1,200 books about Stalin. Among the best known of these are the biographies by the French ex-Communist Boris Souvarine (published in 1935) and Leon Trotsky (posthumously published in 1941). Of the more recent biographies, especially noteworthy is that by the Soviet general Dmitri Volkogonov, based on archival sources and originally published in 1988.

Stephen Kotkin, a history professor at Princeton, has issued what he intends to be the first of three biographical volumes. It covers Stalin's life until 1928, by which time, with Lenin dead and Trotsky exiled, he became the Soviet Union's undisputed leader. The book is based on an immense number of sources: its bibliography covers nearly fifty pages and lists some three thousand titles. The endnotes encompass 122 pages. The dimensions of the projected biography are explained by the author's conception of his book as much more than the life of a single man: as he says in the introduction, "in some ways the book builds toward a history of the world from Stalin's office."

Following Trotsky's dismissal of him as "the outstanding mediocrity in our party," it has been the practice of non-Bolshevik biographers to treat the young Stalin as a nonentity. Kotkin rightly rejects this view, stressing Stalin's bookishness, his loyalty, his ability to "get things done." He cites a former schoolmate recalling that Stalin "was a very capable boy, always coming first in his class; he was [also] first in all games and recreation." "What Trotsky and others missed or refused to acknowledge," Kotkin writes,

was that Stalin had a deft political touch: he recalled names and episodes of peoples' biographies, impressing them with his familiarity, concern, and attentiveness, no matter where they stood in the hierarchy…. This in contrast to Lenin's other close associates, who were mainly bookish intellectuals. On becoming personally acquainted with Stalin in 1905, whom in a letter to Maxim Gorky he would call a "splendid Georgian," Lenin quickly learned to appreciate Stalin's abilities as an organizer and increasingly came to rely on him. Even Trotsky had to admit that in 1917 he had "noticed that Lenin was 'advancing' Stalin, valuing in him his firmness, grit, stubbornness, and to a certain extent his slyness."

As a youth, Stalin, known as Soso, was destined for a clerical career and enrolled in a theological school. He performed poorly and in 1899 was expelled from the Tiflis Theological Seminary. By this time he had read Marx and became a fully committed revolutionary. Kotkin describes how he "immersed himself in the workers' milieu," getting a job at an oil refinery owned by the Rothschilds and distributing incendiary leaflets. He engaged in illegal activities, including banditry, for which he was arrested in April 1902, and the following year sentenced to three years' exile in Siberia. He soon escaped his exile and returned to revolutionary work, for which in 1908 he received another sentence of exile, which he again succeeded in escaping. In 1913 he was exiled for the sixth time: he remained in Siberia until the revolution. He was back in Petrograd in March 1917, one month ahead of Lenin.

Before Lenin returned to Russia and called for a decisive break with the Provisional Government, Stalin, unacquainted with Lenin's thinking, wanted the Bolsheviks to cooperate with the government. Also, unusually for a Bolshevik and quite realistically, he questioned the likelihood of a revolution breaking out in Europe. As Kotkin writes, Stalin would note a few months later that "there is no revolutionary movement in the West, nothing exists, only potential, and we cannot count on potential."

"Stalin's role in 1917 has been a subject of dispute," writes Kotkin.

Nikolai Sukhanov [the author of a seven-volume memoir of the revolution]…forever stamped interpretations, calling Stalin in 1917 "a grey blur, emitting a dim light every now and then and not leaving any trace. There is really nothing more to be said about him." Kotkin justly disagrees with this judgment. "Sukhanov's characterization…was flat wrong," he writes.

Stalin was deeply engaged in all deliberations and actions in the innermost circle of the Bolshevik leadership, and, as the coup neared and then took place, he was observed in the thick of events. Stalin's official post in the new Soviet government was commissar of nationalities. Roughly more than half the population of the Russian state consisted of national minorities. Stalin was the Bolshevik Party's expert on this subject, having written in 1913, under Lenin's tutelage, an essay in which he had advocated that the minorities be granted the right to "self-determination" without specifying what exactly he meant by it. But his actual position in the Soviet government was much weightier: a member of the Bolshevik Central Committee since 1912, he was, as Kotkin notes, one of the party's four "top" people, next to Lenin, Trotsky, and Yakov Sverdlov, as well as editor of Pravda. He was important to Lenin not because of his ideas—Lenin had no need of those—but because of his organizational skills and uncanny ability to deal with people. He had a talent, Kotkin writes, "for summarizing complicated issues in a way that could be readily understood."

His principal rival was Trotsky, who in March 1918 was appointed people's commissar of army and navy affairs, in which capacity he directed the Red forces to ultimate victory in the Civil War. Incomparably more sophisticated than Stalin, Trotsky had two strikes against him. One was his prolonged hostility toward Lenin. In the early years of the century he had repeatedly denounced Lenin as a "slipshod attorney," a "Robespierre" who sought "a dictatorship over the proletariat," a "malicious and morally repulsive" individual. This hostility was ignored after he joined the Bolsheviks in mid-1917, but the memory lingered. In elections to the Central Committee held at the Tenth Party Congress in 1921, the hero of the Civil War came in tenth, behind Stalin.

The other handicap was his Jewishness. Although born a Jew, Trotsky attached no significance to this fact, on one occasion telling a Jewish delegation that he was not a Jew but an "internationalist." Yet whatever he thought of himself, he was perceived, in and out of the party, as what Stalin in a personal conversation cited by Kotkin called "a Jewish internationalist." No Jew had ever held a governmental post in Russia and this was not about to change. Trotsky's handicap proved Stalin's boon. In March 1921, Lenin declared that as concerned politics, Trotsky "hasn't got a clue" and is said to have proposed that he be excluded from Politburo meetings.

In June 1918, Stalin was dispatched to Tsaritsyn on the Volga to gather grain for the central cities. Before long Tsaritsyn was encircled by anti-Bolshevik White armies. Stalin requested and obtained unlimited powers over the city and its garrison; instead of being engaged in provisioning he assumed military command. He acted ruthlessly, shooting many people. Trotsky was dissatisfied with his performance and asked Lenin to have him recalled. The city was eventually won when Dmitry Zhloba, leader of the Bolshevik "Steel Brigade," led a raid on the White Army. Even though Tsaritsyn was not a glorious page in his career, in 1925 Stalin had it renamed in his honor as Stalingrad, a name the city would bear until 1961 when, following his disgrace, it was renamed Volgograd.

Even after Stalin's failure to lead the Red Army in Tsaritsyn, his power continued to grow. By the autumn of 1921 he was drafting Politburo agendas and appointing numerous party officials. As Lenin's health began to deteriorate in early 1922, Stalin felt increasingly secure in his post. In the spring of that year, Lenin proposed and the Eleventh Party Congress acquiesced in having Stalin appointed the party's general secretary, the chief executive officer of the Central Committee. In this capacity he was Lenin's heir apparent. Kotkin describes how he "had exceptional power almost instantaneously." My own researches revealed that during 1922 Stalin was Lenin's most frequent visitor. He grew increasingly self-confident and began to act on his own initiative, which soon led to a conflict with Lenin.

In 1922 Lenin suffered two massive strokes that gradually eliminated him from public activity. He was installed in a mansion outside Moscow where doctors permitted him only occasional involvement in politics. Though disabled, he watched with growing dismay Stalin's high-handed behavior and began to wonder whether he had not made a mistake endowing him with such great powers. In December 1922–January 1923, he dictated a document that came to be known as his "Testament." In it, he wrote as follows:

Stalin is too rude and this shortcoming, fully tolerable within our midst and in our relations as Communists, becomes intolerable in the post of General Secretary. For this reason I suggest that the comrades consider how to transfer Stalin from this post and replace him with someone who in all other respects enjoys over Comrade Stalin only one advantage, namely greater patience, greater loyalty, greater courtesy and attentiveness to comrades, less capriciousness, etc. This powerful denunciation of Stalin, first published in The New York Times in 1926 (translated by Max Eastman), had to wait thirty years before it became public knowledge in the Soviet Union, following Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin at the Twentieth Party Congress. Subsequently it was included in the fifth edition of Lenin's Collected Works.

Given these facts, it comes as a considerable surprise to have Kotkin reject the Testament as very likely a fabrication. He refers to it as a document "attributed" to Lenin whose authenticity "has never been proven." Although Kotkin acknowledges that it could be authentic, he does not clearly accept it as such, as it has been by all other historians; as noted, it is included in Lenin's Collected Works. Kotkin points to the fact that no stenographic originals of the document exist. But he contradicts himself by citing Stalin's own references to the Testament and his admission, according to an account by Trotsky of a party meeting, that he was indeed "rude." Stalin, in whose interest it was to denounce the Testament as a forgery, never did so, as Kotkin himself admits: indeed, he referred to it as "the known letter of comrade Lenin."

In January 1923 another incident occurred that further alienated Lenin from Stalin. Lenin congratulated Trotsky for having won a battle over foreign trade. Stalin promptly learned of this communication. He telephoned Nadezhda Krupskaya, Lenin's wife, rudely criticized her for "informing Lenin about party and state affairs" in violation of the rules he had established, and threatened her with an investigation. Having hung up the phone, Krupskaya became hysterical, sobbing and rolling on the floor. When he learned of this incident several months later, Lenin sent Stalin the following note:

Respected Comrade Stalin! You had the rudeness to telephone my wife and abuse her. Although she had told you of her willingness to forget what you had said…I have no intention of forgetting so easily what is done against me, and, needless to say, I consider whatever is done to my wife to be directed also against myself. For this reason I request you to inform me whether you agree to retract what you have said and apologize, or prefer a breach of relations between us. Kotkin does not cite this letter but refers to it as a "purported dictation" because there is no handwritten stenographic copy or any record of the letter having been sent from Lenin's secretariat, even though it, too, is reproduced in Lenin's Collected Works.

Finally, there was the Georgian question. In early 1920 Lenin ordered the invasion of Transcaucasia, an area consisting of three sovereign republics, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Given the overwhelming superiority of the Red Army the conquest proceeded smoothly. But once it was completed Stalin and his sidekick, Sergo Ordzhonikidze, began to behave ruthlessly in their native Georgia. Deeply troubled by reports that were reaching him from there, Lenin started to reconsider the whole concept of a Soviet Union. In the last days of 1922 he dictated a memorandum on the nationality question in which he criticized Stalin's "hastiness and administrative passions" as well as his proclivity for anger. Referring to Stalin's actions in conquered Georgia, he called him in this document "a crude Great Russian Derzhimorda" or "mug-slammer."

Kotkin does not cite this document either but simply dismisses it as "a blatant forgery," although it has been accepted by all historians of the period of whom I am aware as well as the editors of Lenin's Collected Works.

It is difficult to explain Kotkin's skepticism of Lenin's late anti-Stalin diatribes except perhaps by his unwillingness to concede that, supportive as Lenin had been of Stalin until his fatal illness, by the end of his life he had turned resolutely against him. Kotkin admits that statements made by Lenin to his sister corroborate some of the Testament's contents. But he maintains that the document itself may not have been written by Lenin and suggests that Krupskaya may have been responsible for it, believing that "in her heart she knew Lenin's wishes."

This volume ends in 1928, which indeed was a critical year in the history of the Soviet Union. In January Trotsky was exiled to Central Asia from where, the following year, he would be expelled to Turkey and eventually end up in Mexico, where he would be murdered by a Stalinist agent. This eliminated Stalin's main rival. Then in Siberia, Stalin delivered what Kotkin calls an "earth-shattering speech" in which he announced two revolutionary measures: collectivization and industrialization.

Collectivization would deprive the 100 million Russian peasants of the land they had acquired over the previous century and herd them into collectives in which they would work not as independent farmers but as state servants. It was a return to the Muscovite period when the crown owned all the country's acreage. The peasants furiously resisted this mass expropriation, destroying crops and killing livestock. Half of Russia's horses, cattle, and pigs perished in this slaughter. As a consequence, between five and seven million people died from hunger.

Industrialization—in fact if not in theory—was meant to give the USSR a defensive capability necessary for the looming World War II, which Stalin both anticipated and hoped for. Although in principle it was intended to give the USSR a rich, modern economy, in reality it served principally military purposes. After joining the Politburo in the late 1980s, Yakovlev learned to his amazement that 70 percent of the Soviet economy was militarized.

This is a very serious biography that, except for its eccentric denial of Lenin's rift with Stalin late in his life, is likely to well stand the test of time.

Joseph Stalin, for a quarter-century undisputed master of the Soviet Union and its postwar satellites, was one of the leading mass murderers of the murderous twentieth century. So much so that Hitler, Stalin's competitor in this field, came greatly to admire him. In some of his "table talks," held in the circle of intimate associates while German troops were ravaging the Soviet Union, Hitler called him a "genius" and a "tiger."*

According to Alexander Yakovlev, a member of the Politburo and the closest adviser of Mikhail Gorbachev, who as chairman of a commission to study Stalinist repressions had access to all the relevant records, Stalin was responsible for the death of 15 million Soviet citizens. He tyrannized over the country as no one had done before. Yet according to public opinion polls, he remains one of Russia's most popular political figures: a survey conducted in 2006 revealed that nearly one half (47 percent) of Russians regarded him as a positive figure.

What accounts for this paradox? It is that the great majority of Russians have little interest in politics. They regard politicians as crooks and esteem them only to the extent that they protect them from their neighbors and foreigners. Their concerns are not national but local, which means that the majority of them do not participate in politics in the sense in which the ancient Greeks have taught us. Thus when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 after nearly three quarters of a century of unprecedented tyranny, there were neither protests nor jubilations; people simply went about their private business. The lives of the great majority of Russians are uncommonly personal, which makes them excellent friends and poor citizens.

There was nothing in Stalin's background to have anticipated that he would wield such monstrous power. He came into the world in the Georgian province of the Russian Empire, the child of a cobbler and a washerwoman, both of whom had been born serfs. His actual year of birth was 1878 but in 1922 he decided to rejuvenate himself and proclaimed his birthdate to have been December 21, 1879. Henceforth, as long as he was alive, his birthday was celebrated on that day throughout the Soviet Union. His alleged fiftieth birthday in 1929 was a national holiday.

Harvard University's library catalog lists over 1,200 books about Stalin. Among the best known of these are the biographies by the French ex-Communist Boris Souvarine (published in 1935) and Leon Trotsky (posthumously published in 1941). Of the more recent biographies, especially noteworthy is that by the Soviet general Dmitri Volkogonov, based on archival sources and originally published in 1988.

Stephen Kotkin, a history professor at Princeton, has issued what he intends to be the first of three biographical volumes. It covers Stalin's life until 1928, by which time, with Lenin dead and Trotsky exiled, he became the Soviet Union's undisputed leader. The book is based on an immense number of sources: its bibliography covers nearly fifty pages and lists some three thousand titles. The endnotes encompass 122 pages. The dimensions of the projected biography are explained by the author's conception of his book as much more than the life of a single man: as he says in the introduction, "in some ways the book builds toward a history of the world from Stalin's office."

Following Trotsky's dismissal of him as "the outstanding mediocrity in our party," it has been the practice of non-Bolshevik biographers to treat the young Stalin as a nonentity. Kotkin rightly rejects this view, stressing Stalin's bookishness, his loyalty, his ability to "get things done." He cites a former schoolmate recalling that Stalin "was a very capable boy, always coming first in his class; he was [also] first in all games and recreation." "What Trotsky and others missed or refused to acknowledge," Kotkin writes,

was that Stalin had a deft political touch: he recalled names and episodes of peoples' biographies, impressing them with his familiarity, concern, and attentiveness, no matter where they stood in the hierarchy…. This in contrast to Lenin's other close associates, who were mainly bookish intellectuals. On becoming personally acquainted with Stalin in 1905, whom in a letter to Maxim Gorky he would call a "splendid Georgian," Lenin quickly learned to appreciate Stalin's abilities as an organizer and increasingly came to rely on him. Even Trotsky had to admit that in 1917 he had "noticed that Lenin was 'advancing' Stalin, valuing in him his firmness, grit, stubbornness, and to a certain extent his slyness."

As a youth, Stalin, known as Soso, was destined for a clerical career and enrolled in a theological school. He performed poorly and in 1899 was expelled from the Tiflis Theological Seminary. By this time he had read Marx and became a fully committed revolutionary. Kotkin describes how he "immersed himself in the workers' milieu," getting a job at an oil refinery owned by the Rothschilds and distributing incendiary leaflets. He engaged in illegal activities, including banditry, for which he was arrested in April 1902, and the following year sentenced to three years' exile in Siberia. He soon escaped his exile and returned to revolutionary work, for which in 1908 he received another sentence of exile, which he again succeeded in escaping. In 1913 he was exiled for the sixth time: he remained in Siberia until the revolution. He was back in Petrograd in March 1917, one month ahead of Lenin.

Before Lenin returned to Russia and called for a decisive break with the Provisional Government, Stalin, unacquainted with Lenin's thinking, wanted the Bolsheviks to cooperate with the government. Also, unusually for a Bolshevik and quite realistically, he questioned the likelihood of a revolution breaking out in Europe. As Kotkin writes, Stalin would note a few months later that "there is no revolutionary movement in the West, nothing exists, only potential, and we cannot count on potential."

"Stalin's role in 1917 has been a subject of dispute," writes Kotkin.

Nikolai Sukhanov [the author of a seven-volume memoir of the revolution]…forever stamped interpretations, calling Stalin in 1917 "a grey blur, emitting a dim light every now and then and not leaving any trace. There is really nothing more to be said about him." Kotkin justly disagrees with this judgment. "Sukhanov's characterization…was flat wrong," he writes.

Stalin was deeply engaged in all deliberations and actions in the innermost circle of the Bolshevik leadership, and, as the coup neared and then took place, he was observed in the thick of events. Stalin's official post in the new Soviet government was commissar of nationalities. Roughly more than half the population of the Russian state consisted of national minorities. Stalin was the Bolshevik Party's expert on this subject, having written in 1913, under Lenin's tutelage, an essay in which he had advocated that the minorities be granted the right to "self-determination" without specifying what exactly he meant by it. But his actual position in the Soviet government was much weightier: a member of the Bolshevik Central Committee since 1912, he was, as Kotkin notes, one of the party's four "top" people, next to Lenin, Trotsky, and Yakov Sverdlov, as well as editor of Pravda. He was important to Lenin not because of his ideas—Lenin had no need of those—but because of his organizational skills and uncanny ability to deal with people. He had a talent, Kotkin writes, "for summarizing complicated issues in a way that could be readily understood."

His principal rival was Trotsky, who in March 1918 was appointed people's commissar of army and navy affairs, in which capacity he directed the Red forces to ultimate victory in the Civil War. Incomparably more sophisticated than Stalin, Trotsky had two strikes against him. One was his prolonged hostility toward Lenin. In the early years of the century he had repeatedly denounced Lenin as a "slipshod attorney," a "Robespierre" who sought "a dictatorship over the proletariat," a "malicious and morally repulsive" individual. This hostility was ignored after he joined the Bolsheviks in mid-1917, but the memory lingered. In elections to the Central Committee held at the Tenth Party Congress in 1921, the hero of the Civil War came in tenth, behind Stalin.

The other handicap was his Jewishness. Although born a Jew, Trotsky attached no significance to this fact, on one occasion telling a Jewish delegation that he was not a Jew but an "internationalist." Yet whatever he thought of himself, he was perceived, in and out of the party, as what Stalin in a personal conversation cited by Kotkin called "a Jewish internationalist." No Jew had ever held a governmental post in Russia and this was not about to change. Trotsky's handicap proved Stalin's boon. In March 1921, Lenin declared that as concerned politics, Trotsky "hasn't got a clue" and is said to have proposed that he be excluded from Politburo meetings.

In June 1918, Stalin was dispatched to Tsaritsyn on the Volga to gather grain for the central cities. Before long Tsaritsyn was encircled by anti-Bolshevik White armies. Stalin requested and obtained unlimited powers over the city and its garrison; instead of being engaged in provisioning he assumed military command. He acted ruthlessly, shooting many people. Trotsky was dissatisfied with his performance and asked Lenin to have him recalled. The city was eventually won when Dmitry Zhloba, leader of the Bolshevik "Steel Brigade," led a raid on the White Army. Even though Tsaritsyn was not a glorious page in his career, in 1925 Stalin had it renamed in his honor as Stalingrad, a name the city would bear until 1961 when, following his disgrace, it was renamed Volgograd.

Even after Stalin's failure to lead the Red Army in Tsaritsyn, his power continued to grow. By the autumn of 1921 he was drafting Politburo agendas and appointing numerous party officials. As Lenin's health began to deteriorate in early 1922, Stalin felt increasingly secure in his post. In the spring of that year, Lenin proposed and the Eleventh Party Congress acquiesced in having Stalin appointed the party's general secretary, the chief executive officer of the Central Committee. In this capacity he was Lenin's heir apparent. Kotkin describes how he "had exceptional power almost instantaneously." My own researches revealed that during 1922 Stalin was Lenin's most frequent visitor. He grew increasingly self-confident and began to act on his own initiative, which soon led to a conflict with Lenin.

In 1922 Lenin suffered two massive strokes that gradually eliminated him from public activity. He was installed in a mansion outside Moscow where doctors permitted him only occasional involvement in politics. Though disabled, he watched with growing dismay Stalin's high-handed behavior and began to wonder whether he had not made a mistake endowing him with such great powers. In December 1922–January 1923, he dictated a document that came to be known as his "Testament." In it, he wrote as follows:

Stalin is too rude and this shortcoming, fully tolerable within our midst and in our relations as Communists, becomes intolerable in the post of General Secretary. For this reason I suggest that the comrades consider how to transfer Stalin from this post and replace him with someone who in all other respects enjoys over Comrade Stalin only one advantage, namely greater patience, greater loyalty, greater courtesy and attentiveness to comrades, less capriciousness, etc. This powerful denunciation of Stalin, first published in The New York Times in 1926 (translated by Max Eastman), had to wait thirty years before it became public knowledge in the Soviet Union, following Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin at the Twentieth Party Congress. Subsequently it was included in the fifth edition of Lenin's Collected Works.

Given these facts, it comes as a considerable surprise to have Kotkin reject the Testament as very likely a fabrication. He refers to it as a document "attributed" to Lenin whose authenticity "has never been proven." Although Kotkin acknowledges that it could be authentic, he does not clearly accept it as such, as it has been by all other historians; as noted, it is included in Lenin's Collected Works. Kotkin points to the fact that no stenographic originals of the document exist. But he contradicts himself by citing Stalin's own references to the Testament and his admission, according to an account by Trotsky of a party meeting, that he was indeed "rude." Stalin, in whose interest it was to denounce the Testament as a forgery, never did so, as Kotkin himself admits: indeed, he referred to it as "the known letter of comrade Lenin."

In January 1923 another incident occurred that further alienated Lenin from Stalin. Lenin congratulated Trotsky for having won a battle over foreign trade. Stalin promptly learned of this communication. He telephoned Nadezhda Krupskaya, Lenin's wife, rudely criticized her for "informing Lenin about party and state affairs" in violation of the rules he had established, and threatened her with an investigation. Having hung up the phone, Krupskaya became hysterical, sobbing and rolling on the floor. When he learned of this incident several months later, Lenin sent Stalin the following note:

Respected Comrade Stalin! You had the rudeness to telephone my wife and abuse her. Although she had told you of her willingness to forget what you had said…I have no intention of forgetting so easily what is done against me, and, needless to say, I consider whatever is done to my wife to be directed also against myself. For this reason I request you to inform me whether you agree to retract what you have said and apologize, or prefer a breach of relations between us. Kotkin does not cite this letter but refers to it as a "purported dictation" because there is no handwritten stenographic copy or any record of the letter having been sent from Lenin's secretariat, even though it, too, is reproduced in Lenin's Collected Works.

Finally, there was the Georgian question. In early 1920 Lenin ordered the invasion of Transcaucasia, an area consisting of three sovereign republics, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Given the overwhelming superiority of the Red Army the conquest proceeded smoothly. But once it was completed Stalin and his sidekick, Sergo Ordzhonikidze, began to behave ruthlessly in their native Georgia. Deeply troubled by reports that were reaching him from there, Lenin started to reconsider the whole concept of a Soviet Union. In the last days of 1922 he dictated a memorandum on the nationality question in which he criticized Stalin's "hastiness and administrative passions" as well as his proclivity for anger. Referring to Stalin's actions in conquered Georgia, he called him in this document "a crude Great Russian Derzhimorda" or "mug-slammer."

Kotkin does not cite this document either but simply dismisses it as "a blatant forgery," although it has been accepted by all historians of the period of whom I am aware as well as the editors of Lenin's Collected Works.

It is difficult to explain Kotkin's skepticism of Lenin's late anti-Stalin diatribes except perhaps by his unwillingness to concede that, supportive as Lenin had been of Stalin until his fatal illness, by the end of his life he had turned resolutely against him. Kotkin admits that statements made by Lenin to his sister corroborate some of the Testament's contents. But he maintains that the document itself may not have been written by Lenin and suggests that Krupskaya may have been responsible for it, believing that "in her heart she knew Lenin's wishes."

This volume ends in 1928, which indeed was a critical year in the history of the Soviet Union. In January Trotsky was exiled to Central Asia from where, the following year, he would be expelled to Turkey and eventually end up in Mexico, where he would be murdered by a Stalinist agent. This eliminated Stalin's main rival. Then in Siberia, Stalin delivered what Kotkin calls an "earth-shattering speech" in which he announced two revolutionary measures: collectivization and industrialization.

Collectivization would deprive the 100 million Russian peasants of the land they had acquired over the previous century and herd them into collectives in which they would work not as independent farmers but as state servants. It was a return to the Muscovite period when the crown owned all the country's acreage. The peasants furiously resisted this mass expropriation, destroying crops and killing livestock. Half of Russia's horses, cattle, and pigs perished in this slaughter. As a consequence, between five and seven million people died from hunger.

Industrialization—in fact if not in theory—was meant to give the USSR a defensive capability necessary for the looming World War II, which Stalin both anticipated and hoped for. Although in principle it was intended to give the USSR a rich, modern economy, in reality it served principally military purposes. After joining the Politburo in the late 1980s, Yakovlev learned to his amazement that 70 percent of the Soviet economy was militarized.

This is a very serious biography that, except for its eccentric denial of Lenin's rift with Stalin late in his life, is likely to well stand the test of time.

The International Socialist Organization here in the United States has posted an article about the lack of an anti-war movement here in the US since Obama was elected.

The gibberish produced by this group as it fronts for liberals and the so-called left intelligentsia and the trade union mis-leadership is a particularly revolting sight.

Historically this tendency was never a defender of the conquests of October. All their talk about "Soviet imperialism" is testament to this. They fear the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is a topic they are loath to mention in polite company

They do make some valid and interesting points though about the stance of Workers World Party opposing national and worker struggles today in Syria, Iran, China, and Ukraine.

_____

Excerpt:

.... If there were ever a moment for radicals to provide an alternative to liberalism, now would be that moment. But many on the left have put forward a faux version of anti-imperialism that is actually an obstacle to building the left and galvanizing broader antiwar opposition.

The first problem is that the forces on the left are scattered and divided. Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER), which at one point posed itself as an anti-imperialist alternative to UFPJ, has suffered a decline during Obama's presidency, like all antiwar formations. ANSWER also suffered from a split in the Workers World Party, the small group that maintained control over ANSWER. ANSWER is now dominated by one wing of that split, the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)

PSL and Workers World are both Stalinist groups. During the Cold War, Workers World sided with the Russian empire against the U.S., even going so far as to call the state capitalist dictatorships of the ex-USSR and the countries of the Eastern bloc socialist. It also supported various tyrants in the poor and developing world, like Saddam Hussein, because they were supposedly standing up to U.S. imperialism.

This position led Workers World to support atrocities against workers and peasants in the name of anti-imperialism, from Russia's brutal repression of Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the Czechoslovakian Revolution in 1968 to the crushing of the Tiananmen Square Uprising in 1989 by the Chinese state capitalist dictatorship.

Even after the end of the Cold War, these groups have preserved the methodology of "campism": Supporting whichever "camp" opposes the U.S., even when it has no pretensions to socialism. For this reason, PSL and Workers World continue to consider U.S. rivals like China and Russia and various Third World dictatorships like North Korea to be "anti-imperialist." By siding with these oppressive states, they fail to side with the oppressed people who live under them.

This is actually imperialist politics disguised as anti-imperialism. Genuine anti-imperialism does not choose between rival states in the capitalist system, but supports national liberation struggles against all imperialisms as part of the international workers' movement to get rid of capitalism and its system of states. That means standing with mass democratic revolts, regardless of whether the regime is an ally or opponent of the U.S.

This faux anti-imperialism of Workers World and PSL poisoned their reaction to the Arab Spring. They didn't support the uprisings across the board, but only when they challenged allies of the U.S. state. Thus, they cheered the Egyptian revolution against U.S.-backed dictator Hosni Mubarak, but not the Syrian revolution against Bashar al-Assad, because his conflicts with the U.S.--though the Assad regime has managed to collaborate with the U.S. in numerous cases throughout the last few decades--supposedly made him an anti-imperialist.

Workers World and PSL backed Assad's brutal repression of the Arab Spring protests and his subsequent murderous war on Syria's people. Workers World went so far as to send "election observers" to provide celebrate Assad's "re-election" earlier this year.

Just like the liberals, the campist left tries to deal with the crisis by looking for solutions from above. Workers World and PSL back Russia, China, Syria and Iran against the U.S. and its allies. In reality, no solution will come from either the American camp or the Russian/Chinese camp, because both have predatory aims in the region.

Two disastrous consequences flow from left campism. One is that it isolates the left from the only force that could provide a solution to the crisis--the workers, peasants and oppressed peoples of the Middle East. From Syria to Bahrain to Iran to Palestine, they are fighting for liberation from states that U.S. imperialism supports, as well as those that Russia and China support. The left ought to stand with those struggling for revolution from below against the existing states no matter which camp they are in.

The second effect is that these politics alienate the newly radicalizing students and workers who are the potential base of the antiwar movement. Many are still influenced by liberal ideas, but they can be won to an anti-imperialist movement that meets their desire to see justice and democracy. They won't be won to one that champions tyrants like Assad in the name of anti-imperialism....

It is fast approaching 100 years since US President Woodrow Wilson issued his fourteen points at the end of the First World War. The concept of self-determination was the overriding principle that he imposed on the League of Nations and the Middle East.

Wilson stated in January 1918, "the Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development."

Wilson later warned, "Self-determination is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril…."

For imperial interests at the time, Kurdistan was the only major nation not to be granted statehood. The Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 annulled the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, which had proposed a Kurdish state.

A secret deal between the UK's Foreign Minister, Sir Mark Sykes, and the French Foreign Minister, Francois Georges-Picot, that divided up the Middle East has somehow become unbreakable, even if it lacked a solid socio-political or ethnic basis or failed to mirror realities on the ground.

Remarkably, close to a century later, the Kurds remain the largest ethnic group in the world without a state.

Self-determination is recognised by key international charters as the means by which repression, imperialism and subjugation are eradicated, and the free will of nations attained.

Arabs have fiercely campaigned and struggled for the establishment of Palestine as the 22nd Arab state in the Middle East to right what they see as a historic wrong, yet many oppose the establishment of a single Kurdish state.

The principle of self-determination

At the end of World War II, the ratification of the United Nations Charter in 1945 placed the right of self-determination into the framework of international law and diplomacy.

The United Nations Charter states that nations, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference.

Chapter 1, article 1, part 2 clearly states that the purpose of the UN Charter is "to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."

Self-determination is also protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a right of "all peoples."

The Iraqi struggle

With Iraq engulfed in yet more sectarian flames, the renewed Kurdish bid for independence is met with resistance, caution and obstacles. Ironically, while talk of the Kurds breaking away from Iraq has been ubiquitous, it is Iraq that is breaking away from the Kurds thanks to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the marginalising and centralist policies of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Yet the Kurds are been asked to put the brakes on any move towards self-determination and save Iraq and Maliki.

The Unite States helped mask some of the post-Saddam Hussein reality by acting as the crutch supporting an Iraq that was broken and could not stand on its own two feet.

Here is the problem: what good is a comprehensive constitution, democratic frameworks, concessions and promises if the end product is failed implementation, by-passed legislature, half-hearted unity and empty gestures?

Today Kurdistan has a fundamental and unmolested right to one of two clear options: either a truly democratic, federal and balanced Iraq, or outright independence. Since the first option has all but eroded, outright independence remains the only real option.

What do you need to be independent?

While there are many countries dotting the global horizon with populations numbering in the thousands, or gripped by immense poverty and a lack of infrastructure, the Kurds are warned to tread carefully or that their time has not come.

Some claim that Kurdistan does not have the necessary infrastructure or conditions for statehood–but just how much infrastructure does Palestine or Kosovo have compared to the Kurds?

Kurdistan is awash with immense amounts of oil, with a booming economy, a vibrant population and all the trappings of any state. It is a key strategic hub of the Middle East and with the influence and standing to play a key part in the evolution of the Middle East.

Have the Kurds spilled immeasurable blood, tears and tragedy to now return to centralist rule in Iraq or to have terms dictated upon them by other groups?

At the first seismic shift in the Middle East after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds were side-lined and had to painfully endure decades of suffering for their chance to rewrite the wrongs of history. They can ill-afford to be passengers as the evolutionary train darts past this time around.

Is Kosovo really a "special case"?

The ruling by the International Court of Justice in 2010 on the first case of secession raised before the world court, declared that Kosovo's declaration of independence was in fact legal and did not contravene international law.

Key global powers in support of Kosovar rights have continuously pointed to the notion that Kosovo was a special case. The argument was that since Serbia's brutal campaign had forfeited the right to govern Kosovo by "breaching its responsibility to protect" its civilians under international law, the Kosovars were free to choose not to reside with their Serbian counterparts.

This paved the way to implement a roadmap orchestrated by United Nations envoy Martti Ahtisaari, which proposed a scheduled transition to independence.

By the same logic, after brutal campaigns of genocide, repression and even chemical bombings, Iraq has long "forfeited" any sovereign right over Kurdistan.

U.S. President George W. Bush said of Kosovo's independence, "history will prove this to be a correct move to bring peace to the Balkans." A UK government statement deemed the Kosovar move the "most viable way forward".

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the situation "a special case" for reasons such as "…Yugoslavia's breakup, the history of ethnic cleansing and crimes against civilians in Kosovo, and the extended period of U.N. administration."

However, whilst Albanians already had a country of their own (Albania), the Kurds have nothing. The struggle to establish a 'Kosovar' identity in the aftermath of statehood is well documented. At the time of independence, Kosovars had yet to build a distinctive national image, lacking an official flag, security force and national anthem. After all, it was the greater Albanian flag that flew in every corner of Pristina.

Bids for independence

South Sudan followed on the heels of Kosovo by declaring statehood in 2011, after a referendum (ironically, despite statements by Barack Obama to the contrary, a referendum was never held in Kosovo).

Crimea broke away from Ukraine and was annexed by Russia within weeks, in a hastily arranged referendum.

Scotland had an independence referendum in September to vote on whether to break away from the United Kingdom, and Catalonia is in a bid to break away from Spain.

All the while, the international community worry about what precedent is being set for the likes of Cyprus, Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria.

Can the case of 40 million ethnic Kurds without a homeland be compared to relatively small breakaway regions whose ethnicities are already linked to independent states?

New Kurdish push for independence

Kurdish President Massaud Barzani recently declared his intention to hold a referendum on independence from Iraq. Barzani stated, "everything that has happened recently shows that it's the right of Kurdistan to achieve independence." Barzani added,

"From now on, we won't hide that that is our goal. Iraq is effectively partitioned now. Are we supposed to stay in this tragic situation the country's living? It's not me who will decide on independence. It's the people. We'll hold a referendum and it's a matter of months."

Kurdistan's Head of the Department of Foreign Relations, Falah Mustafa Bakir, warned "there is a new reality and that requires a new policy and a new approach."

Meanwhile, Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, the Kurdistan regional government's High Representative to the UK said it "would take a lot for Kurdistan to remain part of Iraq."

The statement from Barzani had the United States and some western powers scrambling. White House spokesman Josh Earnest stated "The fact is that we continue to believe that Iraq is stronger if it is united."

US Secretary of State, John Kerry, had reportedly told Barzani "'whatever your aspirations are for your future, your interests now in the near-term are for a stable, sovereign and unified Iraq."

Even as some major powers warm to the idea of Kurdish independence, they have treaded carefully around the diplomatic line. As talk of Kurdish independence accelerated, Philip Hammond, UK Defence Secretary, towed the same line as the US, affirming that the government's position was to keep Iraq as a unified state.

Yet Iraq has failed to be united and will never achieve such a feat, especially with the new reality of the Islamic State.

Some politicians have been more vocal in supporting Kurdish independence, UK Labour MP, Mike Gapes, stated, "it would be better for the terms and timing and degree of separation to be negotiated and agreed, but ultimately the Kurds have the right to self-determination. The UK and US should respect the will of the people expressed in a democratic referendum."

Other analysts have warned of the dangers of any separation. Peter Harling of the International Crisis Group stated:

"The Kurds are now in a situation where self-determination becomes less a function of their own course of action than Iraq's general breakdown. This may reduce the price to pay for secession, ultimately. But that price remains steep given the remarkable benefits the Kurds currently derive from their relations with Baghdad, Ankara and Teheran. Actual partition likely would negatively affect all three."

Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi warned a referendum on the independence of Iraq's Kurdish region would lead to a "catastrophic" break-up of the country. Yet the same Arab leaders have vehemently supported Palestine in spite of decades of bloodshed.

Obsessed with the unity of Iraq, it seems that the US and regional powers have missed the pieces of Iraq already lying broken on the floor.

--

Bashdar Pusho Ismaeel is a writer and analyst whose primary focus and expertise is on the Kurds, Iraq, Turkey and Middle Eastern current affairs. His has had work published with the BBC, al-Sharq al-Awsat, the Washington Examiner, the Asian Times, Rudaw, the Kurdish Globe, the Epoch Times, and the Lebanese Daily Star among others.

.... This is not the first time Lukashenko has advocated radical employment regulations: In 2012, Belarus reportedly banned workers in the state-controlled timber industry from resigning without a senior manager's permission. Last May, Lukashenko called for similar restrictions in the agricultural sector, explicitly describing the ban on quitting a farmer's job as the reinstatement of "serfdom."

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Farzad Kamangar is a 33-year-old teacher, human rights activist and journalist. He was a teacher in rural areas of Iranian Kurdistan. Prior to his arrest in August 2006, he taught in the town of Kamyaran, Kurdistan. He has been subjected to the most brutal physical and emotional tortures since his arrest. Farzad Kamangar has been accused of "endangering national security" and "belligerence against God", prefabricated charges the Islamic regime in Iran brings wholesale against almost all rights activists. So far, sixteen members of the Kamangar's extended family have been executed by the regime for their political activities. Farzad Kamangar was sentenced to death by hanging on February 2008 after a sham trial. The following is his letter from death row to the clergyman, Qolaam-Hosyn Ezhei, Islamic regime's Minister of Intelligence. It has been translated and distributed by International Committee Against Executions.

__________

January 5, 2008

I have been in prison for many months now. Prison was supposed to crush my will, my love and my humanity. It was supposed to tame me. I have been detained in a ward with walls as tall as history, continuing to eternity itself. They were supposed to separate me from my beloved people, from the children of my land. But I travelled through the tiny window of my cell to far away places everyday and felt myself amongst them and like them. They, in turn, would see the reflection of their grievances imprisoned in me. Prison thus deepened our bonds. The darkness of prison was supposed to erase the very meaning of the sun and light from my mind, but I have witnessed the growth of pansies in the darkness and silence. Prison was supposed to force my mind to consign time and its value to oblivion. I have, however, relived the moments outside prison, and given birth to a new "me" in order to choose a new path.

I have also, like prisoners before me, wholeheartedly embraced every degradation, insult and cruelty that came my way, hoping to be the last person of a tormented generation who has had to endure the darkness of imprisonment in the fervent hope of seeing a new dawn.

One day, I was labeled "belligerent" for having waged war against their "God." The noose of justice was thus woven, ready to take my life. And since that day I have been unwillingly awaiting my execution.

But I have decided, with all my love for my fellow human beings, that if I am to lose my life, let all my organs go to those who may find life receiving them. And let my heart, with all the love and passion in it, be donated to a child. It makes no difference where s/he might be : on the banks of the Kaaroon, slopes of Mount Sabalaan, fringes of the Eastern Desert ; or to a child that beholds the sun rise from the Zagros Mountains. All I want is that my rebellious, restive heart may keep beating in the chest of a child who would, more rebelliously than I, reveal his/her childhood wishes to the moon and the stars, and hold them witness so that s/he may not betray them later as an adult. All I want is that my heart may keep beating in the chest of one who loses patience over the children who go to bed hungry ; one that would keep the memory of Haamed – my sixteen-year-old student – alive in my heart who wrote, "even my smallest wish won't come true in this life," and hanged himself.

Let my heart keep beating in someone's chest, no matter what language s/he might speak. All I want is for her/him to be the child of a worker with calloused hands whose coarseness would keep the sparks of rage against inequalities alive. Let my heart keep beating in the chest of a child who may be a rural teacher in a not-so-distant future, whom the children would greet every morning with their delightful smiles, and with whom they would share all their joys and games. Then the children might not know the meaning of such words as poverty and hunger, and the terms "prison," "torture," "oppression" and "inequality" might be devoid of all meaning in their world. Let my heart keep beating in a tiny corner of your immense world. Only be careful with it, for it is the heart of a person full of untold stories of the people of his land, whose history abounds in pain and suffering. Let my heart keep beating in the chest of a child so that one morning I can cry at the top of my lungs and in my mother tongue [Kurdish] : I want to become a breeze carrying the message of love of all humanity to all corners of this immense world.

" I believe that capitalism enslaves women. In capitalism men dominates while women are underdogs.The main problem is that women accept this oppressive system. Capitalism first impacted Europen women As a YPJ (women's protection unit ) woman of Rojava ( Syrian Kurdistan) , I urge European women to reject this oppressive system. They should reject enslavement , oppression, and capitalism. I urge them to join the ranks of the people; demand self-defense; to find out who [we] women are, and [ decide] our real demands. I want to ask why many European women are still oppressed ? I think this is because capitalism has very much impacted European women. I wish to see them reject capitalism. I want to see them demand more freedom and self-rule,[and] seriously reject oppression."

Saturday, October 25, 2014

.... Leah Henderson, a restaurant worker, and her partner Trent, a former metal polisher, bought a copy of the Militant from Patrick Brown when he knocked on their door in Pukekohe, New Zealand, Oct. 18. Twenty minutes later Trent called Brown to come back and talk about the paper's coverage of Cuba's response to the Ebola crisis and protests against killings of Black youth by U.S. cops. They signed up for a subscription and got a copy of "The Working Class and the Transformation of Learning."

.... His nephew, Josephus Weeks, told the press that many believe that Duncan was initially turned away because "antibiotics and Tylenol are the standard protocol for a patient without insurance."

"For the 10 days he was in the hospital, they not only refused to help us communicate with Thomas Eric, but they also acted as an impediment," Weeks said. "The day Thomas Eric died, we learned about it from the news media, not his doctors." Duncan died alone.

Two nurses who tended to Duncan also caught the disease, but survived....

.... The demonstrated capacities of the Kurds have not only surprised Islamic State and the other Salafi jihadists they are at war with. They have defied all predictions of those who stand against their struggle for national rights and sovereignty, including the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria; the capitalist governments in Ankara, Tehran and Baghdad; and the main imperialist world powers led by Washington. At the same time, the heroic battle for Kobani has inspired not only millions of Kurds, but working people and women throughout the region and beyond....

.... The support for separation in Scotland is not driven by a struggle against discrimination or national oppression. For working people, the referendum was a typical "lesser evil" choice presented by rival capitalists parties. Whether for or against, the vote was decided by how most people judged the outcome would affect living standards and employment, as well as government welfare, pension and health care services. And capitalist politicians on both sides focused their appeals on these issues....

Two days following the most massive political march seen in decades in East Germany, head-of-state Erich Honecker resigned. The protest of 100,000 on October 16 in the city of Leipzig overshadowed a demonstration a week earlier of 50,000. "We want new leaders!" and "We want reforms!" were popular chants at the march. Protesters carried signs calling for greater freedom of the press, unrestricted travel and free elections.

The size of the protests grew rapidly following the mass departure to West Germany of more than 23,000 East Germans during September and early October. The government responded to the wave of emigration by restricting travel outside the country to those with approved visas.

- YES to arming the people of Kobani and Rojava -- but without any assistance from imperialism!

Amidst the hell of the Middle East (especially in Kobani and Rojava), we cannot close our eyes to the massacre of the Kurdish people, who are insufficiently armed, by the Islamic State, or ISIS. This is an outfit that was created from scratch by Western imperialism and that has received all kinds of logistical support from the Turkish government.

Though there are a lot of people who are ready to fight alongside the Kurdish people, there are no heavy weapons to fight the Islamic State. This is an entirely one-sided battlefield.

The top command of the U.S. Armed Forces was able to dismantle the Saddam Hussein military forces in 15 days; now these same U.S. commanders are telling us that it will take three years to defeat the Islamic State. If this is not a cruel joke, it means that we are faced with a trap.

U.S. imperialism -- which for 10 years fomented the war between Saddam's Iraq and Iran -- is now fomenting the war that pits the Islamic State and Turkey against the Kurdish people and Syria. This means the beginning of a great new war in the Middle East.

The involvement of the Turkish government in the war must be ratified, as was the case in 2003, by the Turkish parliament.

The Turkish people does not have confidence in the AKP government.

It will then take a nationwide referendum in Turkey to agree – or not – to engage in this new war. . . .

The peace process is a method that has been used for a long time by the Turkish government to deceive the Kurdish people. The statements by the government's spokespersons, beginning with Erdogan, are pure deception. In the back of their minds, they want the YPG ["Units of Protection of the People" linked to the Kurdish PKK – Tr. note.] to fight Bashar El Assad – all in the name of a peace process that does not exist.

We -- the IKP, or Workers Fraternity Party – have reiterated for years now that peace domestically is impossible when abroad a bellicose foreign policy is being waged. As the children of the Kurdish people of Kobani are killed by the Islamic State, voices of "concern" are raised by the government. What hypocrisy!

On the other hand, it is clear that imperialism will provide some weapons – a limited amount, to be sure -- to the Kurdish people as their goal is to have this war last as long as possible. At the same time, with their no-fly-over zone in the area, they will try to destroy the Syrian State.

The peaceful people of Kobani have been forced to fight against the Islamic State, and for this purpose they have been compelled to seek weapons from imperialism. The truth is that the Kurdish people do not have to play this game, which would make them a hostage to imperialism.

Those who are the targets of the attacks of imperialism have to help each other. This is why those who are under attack by the combined onslaught of the Western forces, Turkey, the Islamic State, Saudi Arabia and Qatar -- that is to say, the Kurds, the Lebanese Hezbollah, the regime in Syria and the Iranian State tomorrow -- must join forces. The Kurds must retrieve their weapons from those countries and should not allow the international forces, including the United Nations, that is to say, to imperialism, to intervene in the region.

All pro-peace forces in Turkey who for years have experienced the absence of peace in Turkey and the Middle East, all the people who oppose the destruction brought by the war -- that is, the poor, workers, the unemployed, the workers' organizations, the trade unions, the political activists, the peace organizations – must join together to oppose the warlike policies of imperialism and its valet – the AKP government of Erdogan.

N.B. Dieudonné recently participated in the Tehran New Horizons conference, a convergence of 'anti-Zionists' from the petty bourgeois left and right. JR

_______________

.... Banned Comedian and Incendiary Essayist Form Controversial New Political Party in France

By Etienne Rouillon October 23, 2014 | 4:25 pm

Former comedian Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala, whose shows were banned in France earlier this year, and incendiary essayist Alain Soral, who is currently under investigation for publishing anti-Semitic texts, have joined forces to launch a new French political party, according to information published on Tuesday on Mediapart, an online French investigative and opinion journal.

According to Mediapart, which obtained a copy of the organization's bylaws, the new party is to be named Réconciliation Nationale (National Reconciliation) and will be jointly headed by M'Bala M'Bala and Soral. The party will be based in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis, where it will share an address with Kontre Kulture, the publishing houseSoral founded, which was convicted in 2013 of publishing anti-Semitic pamphlets. Also housed at this address is Soral's political association, Égalité et Réconciliation (Equality and Reconciliation), created in 2007, and originally a puppet for the Front National (NF), France's far-right nationalist party, before distancing itself from NF to pursue its own anti-Zionist agenda.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

When thinking about the current struggle in Kobani, the part played by US imperialism and the wider civil war in Syria, I found the following "suggestion" from bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky:

"..An irreconcilable attitude against bourgeois militarism does not signify at all that the proletariat in ALL CASES [Trotsky's emphasis] enters into a struggle against its own 'national' army. At least the workers would not interfere with soldiers who are extinguishing a fire or rescuing drowning people during a flood; on the contrary, they would help side by side with the soldiers and fraternize with them. And the question is not exhausted merely by cases of elemental calamities. If the French fascists should make an attempt today at a COUP D'ETAT and the Daladier government found itself forced to move troops against the fascists, the revolutionary workers, while maintaining their complete political independence, would fight against the fascists alongside of these troops. Thus in a number of cases the workers are forced not only to permit and tolerate, but actively to support the practical measures of the bourgeois government.

"In ninety cases out of a hundred the workers actually place a minus sign where the bourgeoisie places a plus sign. In ten cases however they are forced to fix the same sign as the bourgeoisie but with their own seal, in which is expressed their mistrust of the bourgeoisie. The policy of the proletariat is not at all automatically derived from the policy of the bourgeoisie, bearing only the opposite sign – this would make every sectarian a master strategist; no, the revolutionary party must each time orient itself INDEPENDENTLY in the internal as well as the external situation, arriving at those decisions which correspond best to the interests of the proletariat. This rule applies just as much to the war period as to the period of peace."

-- from "Learn to Think - A Friendly Suggestion to Certain Ultra-Leftists" by Leon Trotsky (can be found in the July 1938 issue of New International magazine).

Roza Salih, who is Vice President Diversity & Advocacy at University of Strathclyde Students' Association in Glasgow and NUS Scotland's International Students' Officer, has been organising protests in solidarity with the Kurdish struggle. She spoke to Solidarity.

This battle is now focused on Kobane, but it is a much bigger issue, bigger than Kurdistan. If Kobane falls "Islamic State" will increase their power and strength; the war will escalate; there will be more battles and massacres. It is the Kurdish people fighting now, but this an issue for the entire international community. If we can stop them here the tide can turned.

The Kurds are fighting for their lives and for their life as a people. They are facing genocide, worse even than what Saddam Hussein's regime did at Halabja. These people are brutal, barbaric terrorists: it doesn't matter who you are, they will kill you.

I also want to say something about women. Women are playing a huge role in this struggle. Perhaps never before in history have women played such a major role in a war. The women of Kobane, of all ages, are determined to live or to die defending their city. Elderly women are getting weapons and learning how to fight. Of course ISIS are ultra-misogynists with no respect for women's rights: they have abducted thousands of women and sold them as booty of war. Kurdish women have everything to fight for.

What have you been doing?

I've been working with other Kurdish people in Glasgow. On Saturday we had a demonstration in George Square, to raise awareness and demand more and better coverage from the BBC, as a contribution to raising support for Kobane.

We've set up a Kurdish Human Rights and Cultural Group in Scotland, and are trying to mobilise the Kurdish community. I've also lobbied the Scottish government, and got my university to provide new scholarships for refugees. We are going on the TUC demo in Glasgow on 18 October. We hope to protest at the Turkish consulate in Edinburgh. We have various plans. Some young people want to go to Kurdistan and fight, but I've argued there is plenty we can do here.

I've got to say the response from non-Kurdish trade unionists, student activists and socialists has been weak. People are letting the issue of Western intervention get in the way of making solidarity. They say they support us but they obviously feel uncomfortable to do anything, to bring their solidarity out from under the carpet. This is ridiculous. Even if you are against the US bombing, why does that mean you can't come and demonstrate with us?

What's your view on the bombing?

I have always been against Western interventions in the Middle East. But there is a specific situation. ISIS are armed and trained and backed by all sorts of people. They are good to go. The defenders of Kobane have only limited weapons, and their courage. In that situation, how can we oppose military actions that help the Kurdish resistance?

What else would you demand?

We should demand weapons, military training, tactical and medical support for the Kurdish fighters. We should demand free movement for the refugees, both into Turkey and into Britain and other European countries.

We need to highlight the disgraceful role of the Turkish government, which is doing nothing to help. Do they support ISIS? There are rumours of Islamist fighters being treated in Turkey and sent back to the battlefields. Or maybe the Turkish government just wants to smash the PKK, to weaken the Kurdish struggle. Even now, they are bombing PKK camps inside Turkey. This is just the latest in a long history of oppressing the Kurds, going back centuries.

What can people do?

Support Kurdish people's demonstrations. Find out what's happening locally, go along. If there's nothing, organise a demo. Most of all we need to raise awareness and raise our voices. People can write to MPs, lobby political parties, raise this in student unions and trade unions.

The National Union of Students national executive voted down a motion to support the Kurds, as well as workers' movements, feminists and socialists in Iraq. What do you think?

I'm extremely disappointed and frustrated. Aaron Kiely [former NUS Black Students' Officer] is saying how proud he is the motion was voted down. Supposedly it is Islamophobic. What was Islamophobic about it? I myself am from a Muslim background. Why would I propose a motion that was Islamophobic? In any case, it is not Islamophobic to condemn ISIS and its backers!

At the Scottish Executive, the motion was passed unanimously. NUS UK should have passed it too. The people who opposed the motion are now saying they support the Kurds, which is good, but actions speak louder than words. It seems that they are more focused on opposing intervention than making solidarity.

Right now things are very bad, and it's a life and death struggle. If the situation improves, how would you like to see things develop in the Middle East?

I want the Kurdish people to have freedom – freedom from oppression and the right to decide their own future. Here in Scotland we had a referendum and the right to decide. The Kurds have never had that in hundreds of years. Normal life has been impossible; people are psychologically scarred. Now it is getting worse again. I want freedom for Kurdistan, and I want a society based on secularism, democracy and social justice – for the Kurds and for everyone.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

The Second International 'New Horizon' Conference in Tehran Draws Leading Holocaust Deniers, Conspiracy Theorists, And BDS Activists From Around The World – And Is Backed And Supported By Iranian Regime

The second New Horizon conference – "the 2nd International Conference of Independent Thinkers" – held September 27-October 1, 2014 in Tehran was a gathering of prominent Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists, and BDS and other activists from around the world.

The conference, which was backed and supported by the Iranian regime, was organized by Nader Talebzadeh, Hamad Qashqavi, and Gholemreza Montazami, who also organized previous international conferences sponsored by the regime, such as the "Hollywoodism 2nd Conference" ("Hollywood 'Entertainment' Or Hollywood 'Servant Of Zionism Network?'").[1] The three work closely with circles affiliated with the regime and collaborate in particular with Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) circles.

Among the 30-odd conferees at this year's New Horizon conference, which bills itself as a "conference of independent thinkers and film makers," were leading U.S. and other Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists, BDS and anti-war activists, and more (see Appendix II). The list of participants, as well as the conference program, are posted on the English-language section of the conference website.[2]

The tradition of an annual anti-Israel conference was originated in 2005 by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with the "World Without Zionism" conference; in a speech at that conference, Ahmadinejad called for "eliminating the occupying regime [Israel]" and setting as a goal "a world without the United States and Zionism."[3]

New Horizon Conference 2014 – Topics

According to the Iranian regime news outlet Press TV, the conference was aimed at "providing a platform where independent thinkers can gather" and raising issues such as "the Islamic Awakening movement," "the role of Zionist lobbies in the European and U.S. crises," "introducing international anti-Zionist and anti-imperialist figures," and "Islamic resistance against the Zionist regime."[4] Other subjects discussed at the conference included similarities between Nazism and Zionism, America and the Zionist crimes in the world, and the BDS movement.[5]

The conference program on the website gives the titles of the panel discussions and the names of the panelists, and lists the themes of the discussion. For Day One, September 29, the first panel discussion following ceremonies, speeches, and lectures is "The Iran Nuclear File & Israel's Role," and one of its themes is"The untrustworthiness of the P5+1 as negotiating partners, as well as their hypocrisy, and lack of sincerity." Following that is listed a panel discussion titled "Mossad's Role in the 9/11 Coup d'Etat" and the panelists are given as Thierry Meyssan, Kevin Barrett, Maurizio Blondet, and Jim Fetzer via video link; themes listed for this discussion include "9/11 and the Holocaust as pro-Zionist 'Public Myths'" and "Uniting the Muslim Ummah for 9/11 Truth and Against Zionism."

The first event listed for Day Two, September 30, was a panel discussion on "The Gaza War & BDS Movement Strategies against the Zionist Regime" with panelists Randy Short, Tim Pool, Caleb Maupin and others. Other Day Two panel discussions listed were "The Israeli Lobby vs. the U.S. National Interest (especially as it relates to Middle East Policy)"; "The Mechanisms of Action of the Israeli Lobby and their Effects in Western Capitals"; "The Mechanisms of Action of the Israeli Lobby and their Effects in Western Capitals, Continued"; and "Hosayn Sheykh ol-Islam – Association of NGOs Working for the Liberation of al-Qods."

Day Three's program began with a panel discussion on "Islam as Authentic Universal Religion vs. Zionist Memes of Islam"; one of the panelists listed was Thierry Meyssan. One of the themes of this discussion was given as "The true nature of the war on terror: the case of al-Qaeda and ISIS."

The program also included "conversations" on topics such as "The 'Islamic' State Meme, its Precursors, & the U.S.-Israel-Saudi Triangle."

The Iranian Regime's Involvement In The New Horizon Conference

The involvement of the Iranian regime in the organization of the New Horizon conference and the participation of top regime officials in it is very obvious. First of all, the URL of the conference website, Newhorizon.ir, shows that it was conducted under the official sponsorship of the Iranian regime.

Second, top officials in the Iranian political leadership, some of whom are personally close to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, were panelists at the conference – for example: Alaa Al-Din Boroujerdi, chairman of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee; Hossein Sheikh Al-Islam, secretary of the Committee for the Support of the Palestinian Intifada and advisor to Majlis speaker Ali Larijani; and Mohammad Javad Larijani, head of Iran's Human Rights Council and an associate of Khamenei. Other prominent figures speaking at the conference were Iranian nuclear officials, some of whom were involved until recently in conducting negotiations with the P5+1. They included Saeed Jalili, former Iranian nuclear chief and former representative in negotiations with the P5+1 and candidate in the 2013 presidential elections; Ali AsgharSoltaniyeh, former Iranian representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency and nuclear negotiating team member; and Hassan Abbasi, theoretician of the IRGC and head of the IRGC's Center for Doctrinal Affairs of National Security Without Borders, who has in the past spoken about the IRGC's readiness to strike at strategic U.S. and British targets.[6]

Additional officials close to Khamenei who gave speeches at the conference were Alireza Panahian,who was appointed by Khamenei as head of Khamenei's think tank for Iran's universities and is a member of Khamenei's Amar Headquarters think tank. Others were Ayatollah Hosseini Qaemmaqami, Khamenei's representative at Tehran University,[7] and Hassan Rahimpour Azghadi, member of the regime's Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution.

Conference General Secretary Gholemreza Montazami, Conference International Affairs secretary Hamad Qashqavi, and Conference Technical Committee director Nader Talebzadeh are close to top regime officials, especially hardline ones, as can be seen in photos on their websites. Qashqavi's website also showed him with French antisemitic comedian Dieudonné Mbala Mbala, who is known, inter alia, for mocking the Holocaust and for popularizing the "quenelle"gesture that resembles a reverse Nazi salute.[8]

Conference participants from the U.S., according to the conference website, included founder of the U.S. anti-war Code Pink organization Medea Benjamin; former U.S. Representative Mark Siljander, who in 2012 was sentenced to a year in federal prison for accepting stolen funds on behalf of a charity with terrorism ties;[10] Occupy Wall Street activist Caleb Maupin;[11] Brooklyn-based activist and "caller to Islam" Cyrus McGoldrick;[12] "social action/social justice minister" and Iranian Press TV columnist Rev. Randy Short,[13] Dr. Gareth Porter, who, inter alia, writes for Al-Jazeera English and is described there as "an investigative journalist and historian specializing in U.S. national security policy"[14]; and Dr. Kevin Barrett, author of Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters and a columnist for Press TV;[15] in addition to former U.S. citizen and U.S. Marine Kenneth Nichols O'Keefe, known for leading the human shield action to Iraq and participating in the 2010 Gaza flotilla.[16]

Canadian and British participants included Anthony James Hall, "founding Coordinator and Professor of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada and a member of the 9/11 Truth movement"[17] and Stephen Sizer, vicar of Christ Church in Surrey, England, co-author of the statement "Challenging Christian Zionism"[18] and author of Christian Zionism: Road Map to Armageddon?

Participants from France included Thierry Meyssan, author of L'Effroyable Imposture (9/11: The Big Lie); antisemitic French cartoonist Joe LeCorbeau;[19] Maria Poumier, activist close to Dieudonné; Olivier Lemoine and Thomas Werlet, heads of the neo-Nazi party Parti Solidaire Francais and also affiliated with the French "Parti antisioniste" of Dieudonne and Alain Soral; French-Iranian Friendship Association secretary Gilles Munier, who is close to Soral; and Raphael Berland, member of Thierry Metssan's Reseau Voltaire organization.

Also participating were Isabelle Praile, who was until recently vice-president of the Exécutif des musulmans de Belgique; Manuel Ochsenreiter, editor-in-chief of the German monthly newsmagazine ZUERST!and known for fighting "de-nazification" in Germany;[20] Italians Prof. Claudio Mutti of Italy, an extremist antisemitic Muslim convert who in 1976 translated The Protocols of the Elders of Zion into Italian,Prof. Claudio Moffa, who according to the conference website "achieved international fame through revisionist statements, in particular through public denial of the Holocaust"; and antisemitic conspiracy theorist Maurizio Blondet, author of 11 settembre Colpo di Stato in U.S.; Spanish activist and former leader of the extreme-right Social Republican Movement Juan Antonio Aguilar, a member of the neo-Nazi Blood and Honor international network;[21] Manuel Galiana-Ros, leader of Spain's extreme-right Democracia Nacional party; and Brazilian conspiracy theorist Pepe Escobar, who regularly contributes to Press TV, the pro-Putin Russian outlet RT, and Al-Jazeera.